By John Shaffer With sickening frequency, American police officers are being targeted, shot and murdered. In the latest episode, in Baton Rouge, the killer lured the officers into ambush and opened fire. A few days earlier, in Dallas, officers were ambushed as they were providing security at a rally to support black victims who had been shot by white police officers in other cities. The Dallas shooter said he wanted to kill white cops. The Baton Rouge killer wanted revenge for an incident in that city where a black man was killed by white policemen. The policemen were targeted, not as individuals, but because they wore the uniform. So far this year, 509 US citizens have been killed by police. 238 were white, 123 were black; 79 were hispanic, and 69 were of other races or race is unknown. According to a study by The Washington Post, “the great majority of people who died at the hands of the police fit at least one of three categories: they were wielding weapons, they were suicidal or mentally troubled, or they ran when officers told them to halt.” In 2015, 965 people were shot by police. 564 of those killed were in possession of a gun; 281 were in possession of another weapon; and 90 were unarmed. The Post found that white police officers killing unarmed black men represent less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings.
By John Shaffer The Director of the FBI, after presenting the lies told by Hillary Clinton about her emails and her private server, determined that she had no intent to do anything wrong, and he recommended she not be prosecuted. Fresh from a meeting with the husband of Mrs. Clinton, a meeting that overflowed with chance and spontaneity as only a meeting that takes on a private jet plane on the airport tarmac can overflow, and which touched no subject beyond golf and grandchildren, the Attorney General of the United States followed the FBI Director’s recommendation and did not charge her.
This was in keeping also with the wishes of the current President of the United States, for he made public statements of support for Mrs. Clinton several times during the course of the investigation and isn’t it good to know that in America, the President can freely unburden himself of his deepest wishes without any concerns about the appearance of interfering in the decisions of his subordinates. It is also good to know that we live in an America where one’s station in life cannot influence the course of justice. Imagine! There are places in the world where high officials can commit all kinds of crimes and get away with it because prosecutors and investigators are mere tools of the government and dare not act independently. The citizens of the United Kingdom have voted to “exit” the European Union. The vote was supposed to be a nail-biter, and few polls predicted that the voters would choose to exit; but they did, by a 52% to 48% margin – just about the percentage Barack Obama won in his elections (52.9% in 2008, 51.1% in 2012). The losers in the UK exit vote already are circulating petitions for another vote. Of course, had the “exit” voters lost, the decision would be considered to be final and talk of a re-vote would be seen as a disdain for democracy.
But the decision may prompt other votes. Scotland, where over 60% of the voters favored remaining within the European Union, is ruminating about withdrawing from the UK; and there is talk that Northern Ireland, which also opposed the exit, may seek some type of union with Ireland; and in a sign that the UK’s feelings are not unique, “exit” votes are possible in several other members of the European Union. The reaction by the European trans-national establishment to the exit vote shows as much as anything why the unionists lost and the exiters won. By John Shaffer When one says that something “defies common sense,” there usually is someone who disagrees; but it “defies common sense” to think that the phrase was ever more inappropriately used (or, in other words, “defied the most common sense”) as when President Obama mourned the victims of the slaughter in the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida by saying, and we quote, “It defies common sense” to believe that the victims would have been safer if they had been armed. Former President Bill Clinton said practically the same thing, believing that there would have been even more casualties if the patrons of the nightclub had been armed. Mr. Clinton says that, what with friendly fire, wild shots, carelessness, nerves, stray bullets or whatever - those armed patrons would have caused more casualties. Let’s take these statements apart. Mr. Clinton sure can believe things could have been worse, but remember: The Pulse shooting was not only the bloodiest terrorist attack on US soil since September 11, 2001, it also was the bloodiest mass shooting in US history. It thus already was the worst, and only the shooter was armed. His victims were not. Considering that the killer was stopped by law enforcement officials with guns, it isn’t hard to suppose that if even one of the club patrons had been armed, that the outcome might have been far less bloody.
By John Shaffer The deadliest mass shooting in American history took place at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. The killer called 911 during his assault and proclaimed his loyalty to ISIS. It turns out he was a regular visitor at the establishment, and it has been reported that several of the survivors recognized him. Was he stalking the place, scouting it out, learning the best pattern for attacking it? It turns out a co-worker notified authorities of his concerns about the shooter, but the informant’s statements eventually were disregarded because it was believed he “had an anti-Muslim bias.” It was disclosed that the FBI had interviewed the killer, actually was conducting a type of investigation of him, but abandoned it. The killer legally was in possession of the firearms used, and legally purchased them, having successfully passed background checks. He had traveled to Saudi Arabia and had made statements about jihad and killing people, and also had been so radical that several mosques reportedly rejected him as a member until he found one that would. There are plenty of reasons to be angry about the missed opportunities to have prevented this horrific massacre before it happened.
Well, President Obama was angry during his address to the American people on Tuesday. He may have been angry at ISIS, although he was more angry at them for continuing to hold out despite being pummeled by his vigorous action than for the atrocities they commit. Why, in his far-from-humble opinion, ISIS must be on its last legs. The President may have been angry at the killer, but one wouldn’t know it from the speech he gave. The President wasn’t angry that the FBI had this guy and let him go, or angry that the rules the FBI operates under compelled them to call off its investigation of the killer. By John Shaffer The President and his spokespeople are constantly intoning that this is “the most transparent administration ever," but even enthusiastic supporters of the administration may have a hard time swallowing the State Department’s response to a Freedom of Information Act request for material relating to Hillary Clinton and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. TPP is a trade agreement, which some people bitterly dislike and others enthusiastically favor. Reporters were interested in finding out Hillary Clinton’s position on TPP. She was Secretary of State during much of the negotiation for TPP, and she is running for President, so her feelings are of more than passing interest.
And her position is a bit muddled. When she was Secretary of State, she was one of those enthusiastic supporters. In 2012 she stated that “it set the gold standard in trade agreements.” But now, as a candidate, Hillary is aiming at a difference audience, so, just as once she opposed same-sex marriage but now supports it; and as once she favored the Iraq war but now opposes it; and as once – well why go on, you get the idea – let’s cut to the chase. In 2012 TPP was the “gold standard”but in 2015 she said, “I am not in favor of what I have learned about it,” and “I think there are lots of unanswered questions.” By John Shaffer President Obama has gone on a few "apology tours" since assuming office. Some of us feared he would apologize once more during his recent address in Hiroshima. He did not but it was obvious that he wished we hadn’t dropped the atomic bomb. This President thinks that controlling guns is a better way to control crime than controlling criminals, and it therefore follows that he thinks weapons, not men, are the cause of wars. But this is not so – weapons are tools and none can “cause” a war – wars begin when a weapon is used in an aggressive manner, and it is the aggressor, not his weapon, that must be confronted. The atomic bomb in the hands of the Nazis would have been a catastrophe. The bomb in US hands helped to end the war, win the war and preserve the peace.
The President sees a moral equivalence between an aggressor and a defender. In his Hiroshima address, the President said that “the [Second World] war was fought among the wealthiest and most powerful of nations.” He makes it sound as if both sides were equally responsible for the war or we had no good reason for dropping the bomb. A trip through the late 1930s and early 1940s might provide the context that the President ignores: Mussolini’s Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935; militaristic Japan invaded China 1937; Hitler’s Germany invaded Poland in 1939 (after militarizing the Rhineland in 1936, seizing the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia in 1938; taking most of the rest of that nation in 1939; forcing a union with Austria in 1938; and finally, after signing a non-aggression pact with Stalin’s USSR, invading Poland in September 1939. (Stalin’s USSR invaded Poland from the opposite direction about two weeks later). Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and France all fell before Hitler’s conquering armies by June of 1940; meanwhile, Hitler had taken Denmark and Norway, Mussolini attacked Albania and Greece and Japan launched its attacks on Singapore, the Philippines and the raid on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and soon had conquered Indochina, Burma, Malaya, and large chunks of the Dutch East Indies and many islands in the Pacific. By John Shaffer The Administration is proclaiming a victory for Obamacare: The level of “uninsured” has fallen to the lowest point ever. Well, maybe – but one can wonder what the numbers would be if insurance was NOT mandatory. Remember, if one doesn’t have insurance, one is fined. So, rather than risking the fine, many folks have signed on for insurance, and, assuming the federal government’s numbers are accurate, the share of uninsured has fallen to under 10%. We are not sure why there are still 10% uninsured; with coverage “mandatory” it would seem to follow that close to 100% should be covered. Perhaps those of us who are covered should make an effort to find out the techniques of the 10% who aren’t, so we can join their ranks. By John Shaffer Absurdity seems to be one of the main components of modern progressive government, and it's not only the federal government. There are plenty of America’s cities whose policies are as mind-boggling as anything that comes out of Washington DC. Let’s take New York City, where there is a movement to forbid bar owners from refusing to serve alcohol to pregnant women. Yes, you read that right. The “Human Rights Commission” of the city of New York [and let’s note that the iron law of self-identified nomenclature demonstrates that boards whose names include the words “Human Rights” are far more likely to quash someone’s rights than to defend them, and almost certainly will turn a blind eye to major violations while sparing no effort to put the screws to insignificant offenses] has issued “guidelines” [in other words, do it or else] that state that pregnant women cannot be denied alcoholic beverages merely because they are pregnant. There is more than one reason this guideline is mis-guided. In the first place, a bar owner can be ultimately responsible in the eyes of the law for consequences of his service. So if he serves a pregnant woman, and the baby suffers in some way – or is claimed to have suffered – he probably will be sued by one of those lawyers at the end of the bar. Yes, the Human Rights guidelines would prefer that he sell the woman alcohol, regardless of his personal misgivings. Those lawyers will have a field day with that. And what about the label that is likely to be on any container of alcohol sold in America, you know, the one about pregnant women avoiding alcohol because it can lead to fetal damage? So on one hand, “big government” warns pregnant women not to use the stuff, but another arm of “big government” threatens the bar owner if he doesn’t sell her the stuff. As indicated a few sentences ago – the lawyers will love this policy.
With a decisive win in the Indiana primary, Donald Trump appears to have secured the Republican nomination for President. His main challenger, Sen. Ted Cruz, must think so, because he suspended his campaign. On the Democrat side, Sen. Bernie Sanders defeated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Although it still is far more likely than not that she will be the Democrat nominee for President, he has been giving her a much stronger challenge than anyone would have suspected six months ago.
The Republican race for the nomination at one time included seventeen candidates and they subdivided the votes so completely that large segments of the Republican party are disappointed, disaffected and disgruntled – but perhaps the most certain way to bring the fractured party together is the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Donald Trump himself may not be capable of reuniting the party, but Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee might do so. That remains to be seen, but before those defeated Republican challengers are forgotten, let's speculate what may have happened if there had been only sixteen candidates for the party’s nomination – not seventeen. By John Shaffer A few months ago the Obama Administration let the word out that they were planning to put a woman on the ten-dollar bill. After all, Alexander Hamilton was never President and he died over 200 years ago, so given that a woman was going to be on a bill, who else should she displace? And we heard also that the Treasury Department had polled for favorites, and Harriet Tubman, a former slave whose work on “the Underground Railroad” led several hundred slaves to freedom, was the top choice. The interesting thing was that the Treasury did not announce that “Harriet Tubman” would be on the $10 – they announced that “a woman” would be on the $10. Essentially, the decision first was made was made to honor a woman on the ten-dollar bill – not to honor Harriet Tubman in her own right, but as “a woman.”
Now, we think she is an excellent choice for our currency. A brave woman who took great risks to save others. A person admired by folks across the political spectrum. Yes, Harriet Tubman was an ideal choice for the first portrait change on US currency since Andrew Jackson displaced Grover Cleveland in 1928. But a funny thing happened on the way to Harriet Tubman’s immortality on the $10. A couple of funny things, in fact.One was the mega-hit Broadway play about Alexander Hamilton. Surely someone so famous, who could inspire a great musical, should not be removed from our currency. By John Shaffer The celebrated bank robber Willie Sutton famously was asked why he robbed banks, and he responded with a truism, "Because that's where the money is." That thought came to mind after we read a piece on the budget of the federal government, and it applies to most of the states, for that matter. The best description of the budgets might be "out-of-control," and it is those out-of-control, over-spending budgets that lead to the massive debts that most states, many cities and counties and the US government have amassed, with no end in sight.
The solutions most often proposed to solve the budget crisis involve raising taxes, or trimming the military, or highways, or meat inspection or other functions of government- and that leads us to the "Willie Sutton" reason that no end is in sight - because the solutions never go "where the money is." With the vast majority of the budgets devoted to massive expenses such as benefits, pensions and health insurance, why are the only places the budgets are cut are the tiny places, such as the library or the senior center or closing a roadside rest or a park? Obviously, it’s because the “big things” in the budgets are considered "off limits." – Yep, normal services are cut, offices are closed and inspections are curtailed or parks and monuments shut down or highway rest stops closed or building projects delayed a year or two. A lot of pain is inflicted, but the tiny cuts don’t bring us any closer to solving the problem. In fact, those tiny cuts can’t bring us any closer to solving the problem, because that’s not “where the money is.” Some states, such as Illinois and California, are faced with devoting a large chunk of their budgets just to pay pensions for retired employees. Pennsylvania may not be too far behind. By John Shaffer It started when the city government of Charlotte, NC, passed an ordinance which allowed people to use the public restroom of their choice; in short, a man could "identify” as a woman and use the ladies room – no matter if others using the room might feel uncomfortable. This was developed as a way to assure the rights of “transgender” people. However, most folks would agree that people should be able to use a public restroom without fear that someone of the other sex will be using it at the same time. With that purpose in mind, the North Carolina legislature passed HB 2, which, according to the Charlotte Observer “prohibits cities from imposing bathroom regulations on private businesses and mandates that people in government-owned buildings use the restroom that corresponds to the gender on their birth certificate rather than the one in which they would be most comfortable.” If Charlotte had mandated a third, uni-sex bathroom for folks who don’t want to use the traditional men’s or women’s rooms, no one would have been placed in a situation in which someone of the opposite sex might intrude unexpectedly. The drafters of the Charlotte law were thinking of “transgender” people; the state legislature was thinking of folks who did not want their families exposed to the opposite sex in a public restroom. This is the type of argument that reasonable people can argue about, as long as they respect the position of the other side.
|
Local ColumnistsFind articles by date or topic through quick links below. Categories
All
Archives
March 2020
|